Saturday, 13 March 2010

George takes the cake, and the child

I've been musing about George and all this palaver over his trying to take Simon away from Peter. Is he wrong to do it? Is he right but just used the wrong methods? Are his concerns justified or are they an excuse? Will Eve tear George a new one for doing all this behind her back? How will it all come out? I had some ideas and speculation and have written about it over here.

7 comments:

John
said...

George supposedly never had time for his daughter, Lucy. But what about his wife, Eve? They appear to have been married for a long time, and she seems a kind, loving person - so how was it possible for George not to see Lucy?

I think we all thought George was going to be a villan but it turns out he is just a bombastic Grandad, a man used to getting his own way by fair means or foul. I think he thought he had messed up with his daughter, Lucy, and wanted to make amends through Simon by "giving him a good life". Peter has just given him all the ammunition by keep going back to the drink and who says he won't do it again, he is a bit of a loser. I hope this is not the end we see of Anthony Valentine because he has been great and I would like to see him and Eve popping up every now and again like Jack and Connie.

George may well have been right to have his concerns about Peter/Simon, but the way he went about it was downright evil. I'm going to be gutted if he turns out to have gone soft/reconciles with Peter/Ken, as it looked very much like he was doing in the last episode - I hope he has further villainy up his sleeve. It'll be much more entertaining.

I can understand why George is doing this but behind even his wifes back shows just how determined and actually blinkered he has become.

He wasn't there for Lucy when she was little, that is established. Character wise his actios have actually been consistent and certainly not rash. Initially he was trying to help Simon indirectly by supporting Peter and Leanne. He ploughed a small fortune into the bar of course. Also he was very pushy about the private schooling and even (at such a late stage) paid for Peter's rehab treatment.

A lot of this was down to his enthusiasm at discovering he actually had a grandson of course. He desperately wants to play a very much active role in his upbringing (which i hope he still can).

His conflict with Ken was predictable but actually quite apt in many ways. It helped him get closer to Peter and thus to Simon. It also showed some of Ken's true colours that have exasparated Deirdre for so many years.

He showed a devious (or determined) side however, by manipuLAting Leanne when she very much needed support, in taking Simon away. After actually doing a much needed turn in having Simon over, he quickly abused this position and decided he could do a better job of caring for him.

This, as we know, is very short sighted. Particularly when you consider he was a struggling father himself, with demons, like Peter. He wasn't there for his own daughter. Did he not stop to think that his inherently selfish actions where not only to Simon's detriment but also forcing his own shortcomings as a father onto Peter as another?

I hope to see his relationship with Eve tested through this storyline and i also hope that they both become permanent additions to the cast.

So often with storylines like these, the character is introduced for the short term effect of the storyline, rather than long term to the benefit of the show. Stephanie Beacham being a good recent example.

A fantastic storyline. Consistent in its execution and in my view, a highlight of the rather underwhelming Kim Crowther era.